Jeff Hardy Hairstyles

d econom y , the U.S. economy and stock market, would suffer severe losses. The drop in commodity prices might hold back inflation for a little while. However, it would be offset by higher interest rates. So the inevitable surge in inflation would simply occur a little later. \n\nThe r e is some unsettling evidence that these prognostications ma y be coming to pass. Copper and other metals have started to accumulate in warehouses. Oil stocks, by historical standards are very high. Inventories are even building among those metals and commodities whose prices have been rising faster than U.S. Stocks.\n\nIs the r e something that could bail China out and keep the commodit y party going? According to the bears, the twMost Likely candidates or Are the U.S. and the Chinese Consumers, Neither of Whom Gives much reassurance. Despit Recent cutbacks, the U.S. consumer Remains Tapped out. Without massive releveraging, I is in no position to lead worldwide growth. Hardly Seems possible releveraging And Given today's much Conditions Tougher credit and the sharp decline in home prices. (Had Rising home prices, in years past, Been an important source of Borrowing.). Could the Chinese consume r Be a Better bet? Would it seem so. After all, Chinese Consumers account for little more Than 35 Percent of the economy and , compare to about 70 Percent in the U.S. With a per capita Consumption 1/6th at Less Than That of the U.S. consumer, the Chinese consumer has Tremendous Potential . However, There Are Seemingly strong arguments That Even under a best case scenario the Chinese consumer Will Not Be Able to take up the slack Caused by a massive bust in Capital Expenditure. R history and iCall, no nation's consumer base has grown ever more Than 10 Percent much a year. And so, the bears Argue, Even 10 Percent Growth in consumer Consumption, Combined with a decline in Capital Expenditures, is likely to translate Into Little More Than 5 or 6 percent Growth for the country as a whole. In turn, Such a low rate (for China) would likely lead to Great Unemployment, social unrest, and a slew of Potentially catastrophic problems. As ou and May guess, f r us to Remain bullish on commodities and China, We Must Have Somerategize.\n\nUnlike Ame r icans, the Chinese are ruthless long-term thinkers. Their politicians do not have to answer to a fickle electorate ever y two years. They have long-term goals and they never take their eye off the ball. Rarely do they do anything by accident. In general, they make Machiavelli seem outright tame. Perhaps most importantly, they are quick to take advantage of any weakness. Last but not least, they seek to be independent, lest they lose control of their grand destiny.\n\nIn othe r words, China's decision to create a massive infrastructure and to stockpile commodities has not been done to simpl y keep its middle class leading the good life for another year or two. It is the lower class the Chinese governmen can be seen everywhere in the media - the average Chinese family will be content to own a one room hovel composed of dried dung. However, I find that a bit far fetched.\n\nMo r e seriousl y , we must recognize that today's Chinese consumers are nothing like Americans were at any time in our history. Today, the Chinese consumer accounts for only about 35 percent of the country’s GDP. In the U.S., for as long as we have records, the consumer has never accounted for much less than 65 to 70 percent of national product. \n\nLet’s pla y a r ound with a couple of numbers. Suppose Chinese consumer spending grows at a 15 percent rate for the next decade, while capital expenditures, which have been growing at a double-digit rate, slowAlready China has a lot of Infrastructure in place already. They Could not slow construction for a little while? Hardly. China Infrastructure Needs That expansion to bring the consumer up to speed. How in the world Could you get consumer goods from place to place in a country of 1.3 billion people Enormous Without an Infrastructure? Mo r eover, Bringing the Chinese consumer is Not up to snuff and Something ou Can Do half-way. To Remain content, the Majority of China's poor must-feel Their way of life is Improving. That's a lot of poor people to satisfy. The number of people in China Who survive on less than $ 2 or $ 3 a day equals Probably the Entire Population of the U.S. The Chinese Gove nment simpl r and bring can not startader. And while energy use per capita is very low, energy use as a function of GDP is very high by world standards. In other words, China has all and more of infrastructure it needs.\n\nIf y ou a r e a Westerner and making this assumption, you are making a tragic error that poses as great a threat to the West as an all-out war. Let's look at it another way...\n\nTHE RACE FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY\n\nMa r k Jacobson is someone I know from conferences where we have both spoken and from having interviewed him a couple of times for The Complete Investor. One reason I have been so impressed with Mark is that he has been front and center in pointing out the advantages of using renewable fuels. In 2001 he published an article in Science, one of the world’s Leading two, peer reviewed, general science magazines. Jacobson's article Argues That wind is the cheapest wa and of Generating electricity. Several Years Later I follow up with Another article Arguing That wind electrolysis - using electricity to Separate wind hydrogen from oxygen in water - Would Be a cheap way of Providing transportation fuel from gasoline Than Oil Refining. In Other Words, Obtaining hydrogen from Renewable Energies That energy carrier and using as a way of Fueling Our transportation fleet superior Economically Would Be an alternative to gasoline. Jacobson's wo r k Appeared again in the November issue of Scientific American. I am just going to look at this article in broad strokes, saving a more Detailed anal and ver mined ever y year (about 20,000 tons) to the amount that is considered to be economically viable in the ground (about 200,000 tons), silver is scarcest metal in the world. In fact, it is economically scarcer than oil. \n\nNow let’s suppose that China unde r stands this problem – reall y understands it – and knows that all commodities are scarce and getting scarcer. They realize that they don’t have very much time to erect an alternative energy infrastructure. Indeed, even if you don’t believe peak oil is here or just around the corner, you know that oil and other fossil fuels have finite supplies. So the longer you wait before you start building an alternative energy infrastructure, the less the chance you have to complete it. \nEven if one r Power continues to place little or no demand on silver supplies, Other industrial uses will consume about 70 Percent of the annual silver production and Within ten ears. Now let's speculate. Fo r the sake of argument, suppose China Wants to replace a third of energy use by and Renewable by the end of the next decade. If We Are right about the Chinese and the Potential Shortage of critical commodities, That Could Be a very conservative estimate. Taking Our Estimates of the Costs of alternative energies, as Suggested by the Scientific American article, We Can Make Some very simple extrapolations. China has about 20 Percent of the world's Population, So They May Eventually want to consume 20 Percent of the world’s energy. If their goal is 1/3rd renewable energy by 2020, that would imply infrastructure spending of over a trillion dollars a year until that time. Furthermore, that suggests the capital spending we have seen so far in China, far from being a bubble, is just a very small down payment on what will be necessary. It is no surprise that by some estimates roughly half of the country’s $500 billion stimulus package has gone to alternative energy. \n\nBut while g r owth in capital expenditures in China will prevent an economic contraction, it will come at a tremendous cost. B y 2020, electricity demand in China could easily approach 2,000 gigawatts. And, of course electricity is only a small part of the energy pie. \n\nChina could not r eplace a third of its electricit y with solar even if it wanted to. Why? Because it would mean that by 2020 China would need almost three times as much silver as is currently being mined. Of course, there may be technologies that come along that allow less silver to be used. But given that silver (and tremendous amounts of copper) will also be needed for transmission, and given that silver may already be approaching critically short supplies, the world clearly has a problem that easily rivals a massive conventional war. The horror is that this war may not only be much more costly than other wars but ultimately a war we cannot win.\n\nOf cou r se, silver is onl y one commodity. Who is to say that we have to continue with solar? Maybe wind can replovervalue - at least in the short term. China - and Especially STI stock market - Might experience a correction in the years ahead. Nonetheless, China Any dip in commodities or Should Be Treated as A Buying Opportunity. The long-term trend is Clearly and sharply up.